Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 31 March 2006

Archives
Up to February 2006

A note on sources

A editor just added a totally disputed tag to the page. For interested parties on the sources visit www.Chicagotribune.com search archives for Jack Hyles and you will find the sources in the article. To read the articles you must register. The search that comes up is: Arbustoo 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Capsules were compiled by Nathan Baird, Henry Del Valle,Chicago Tribune; Nov 18, 2002; 14;
2. REV. JACK HYLES LED BUS MINISTRY James Janega, Tribune Staff Writer; Chicago Tribune; Feb 9, 2001; 11;
3. No investigation of church in abuse cases, police say Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 24, 1993; 3;
4. Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case Chicago Tribune wires.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Oct 16, 1991; 3;
5. Newspaper feud adds fuel to preacher's fire Eric Zorn.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Jun 30, 1989; 1;
6. Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 28, 1989; 3;
7. Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says Hisley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 28, 1989; 2C3;
8. Pastor denies adultery, 2 other charges Michael Hirsley, Religion writer.; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); May 25, 1989; 1;
9. Pastor Denies Adultery, 2 Other Charges Hirsley, Michael; Chicago Tribune; May 25, 1989; 11;

A note on Manner of Presentation

As a reply / response to your questioning of this tag, please note that the "manner of presentation" of the controvery is an issue and is not written in a NPV, also, the sheer quantity of "controvery" data as presented in relation to other Hyles information on this wiki gives readers a distict feeling that the page has been hijacked by those with a grudge against this man. Also, you are in effect trying to get readers to come to a conclusion that Hyles is guilty of all these charges, simply because someone accused him and those accusations were published in the press. Yes, I'd say a lot of people who supported Jack Hyles have a problem with your efforts to discredit him and his ministry and a lot of people dispute the facts as you present them here, hence, the disputed tag. Try writing your controvery sections in a NPV, adjust the sheer amount of data downward to reflect a more reasoned presentation when compared to the other data here (or increase the other data here to compensate for the large amount of controvery data, and don't try to lead readers into false conclusions based upon such juvanile reasoning as "the press quoted the accusations, therefore it must be true". --Teeja 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he's guilty or the color purple. It offers facts that Jack was accused of this, Jack's connection to Ballenger, and Jack was sued for various things. Whether he's innocent or not, it comes from a credible source and will be included. Also don't edit/add to my posts or titles. Arbustoo 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you didn't say he's guilty, but that is obviously what you are trying to get readers to believe, and you are having an aweful struggle to write anywhere near a NPV style here. Your edits have proven that you indeed want readers to draw this faulty conclusion, but your conclusion is not a valid nor logical fact. Guilt by accusation is not the way things work in the United States and many civilized countries. The whole point is that all these things are in dispute, not the existance of the press reports you cited. --Teeja 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please post one example of POV in the article. Arbustoo 02:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, really don't have time to play mind games, nor follow rabbit trails. You seem to have a lot more time for that sort of thing, since you're the one that is adding a mountain of data against Jack Hyles, which makes it appear to the average reader as though the wiki has been hijacked by "Hyles-haters". I really must go now, I hope to come back soon and chat about these issues when I have more time. Good luck, take care and happy editing. --Teeja 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So no examples then? Arbustoo 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

accuracy disputed tag reinserted?

How is the accuracy disputed? More specifically how is the Chicago Tribune disputed? Arbusto 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you guys win. Congratulations, Arbustoo, your steadfast efforts have paid off for you. This is a big waste of time and effort. Arbustoo has too many editor friends and admins who are willing to defend his warped view of what constitutes "facts" and valid sources. He also has so much time on his hands that nothing can be done to stop him from using the Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church and Hyles-Anderson College and related wikis as a forum for his grievances. I'm done editing this wiki. It's all yours. In the long run, reasonable readers will see right through this kind of one-sided article, anyway. Nice try at keeping the "community spirit" and "cooperative efforts" of Misplaced Pages. That's nothing but a joke, it seems, at least on these entries. Good luck and happy editing. --Teeja 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a competition. This not about being "anti-Jack Hyles." This is about sources. If you want to add a tag that questions the sources, you must give a reason. You were given the chance, you did not. You were asked to give an example, you did not. You were given a chance to remove the tags yourself, you did not. Your bias is very clear. You are personally involved with this church and another editor as you admitted on your talk page. Arbusto 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like he did give a reason for questioning your sources, with examples (I submit his quote from the First Baptist Church talk page here as evidence:

Much of the information you have currently in the controversy section is not from a reliable or neutral source and is therefore not a valid factual source for a Misplaced Pages entry. As examples, the paragraph concerning Bob Ross and the associated backup documentation is not from a reliable news source, rather, it's from a completely biased and dubious web site (www.kjvonly.org); also, the quotes supported by The Biblical Evangelist are not a reliable source, since it was this paper's editor (Robert Sumner) who first launched the public attack upon Jack Hyles in 1989 - hardly an unbiased and pristine source - Mr. Sumner has a deep personal axe to grind here; also, all the information supported by the Way of Life Ministries footnotes are unreliable and highly opinionated, but yet you have it listed here like it's a legitimate news source; also, the section on Joe Combs should not even be here, this is like suggesting that because Joe Combs used to be member of First Baptist Church many years ago, the church is now somehow responsible for Mr. Combs' actions. That's very poor logic and does nothing but try to lead readers into a false conclusion. All these things together add up to a GREAT dispute of the facts as you have presented them here. The "Dispute" tag will remain; this is a dispute of the facts, not just a NPV concern. --Teeja 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC) --68.78.120.207 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are too busy removing stuff and not reading it. For example, the claim that the Combs piece has no business in the article. If you take the time to read it, the connection is: one babysitter testified "that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College." Furthermore, the other babysitter testified she "reported her suspicions to the college president, but apparently nothing was done, she said." Considering Hyles was the main man at the college and this was reported in a court of law, it is very relevant to the article. Arbusto 08:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Much of" is a weasel phrase. Specify which, and remove it. That which cannot be substantiated from reliable sources should be removed. That which can, should not. You are the ones who care, you can do the spadework, I'm only here to make sure open warfare does not break out. Just zis Guy you know? 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys are not all interested in verifiable anything. We have corrected Arbustoo's junk with a more balanced view, only to have his junk reinstated again and again, supported by his admin friends, who state that we are "valdalizing" the wiki. This seems to be nothing more than a hatchet job against this church and it's ministries, simply because it's fundamentalist Christian beliefs don't fit into your world view. All anyone needs to do is check out Arbustoo's editing history to confirm that. Of course, he'll reply with a lot of arm waving himself, I'm sure. Arbustoo posts a bunch of unverified, unsourced, or poorly-sourced data against the church and college and gets a few of his editor and admin buddies to back him up, who now say that it's somehow the church supporters who must constantly be on guard against his 24/7 misinformation spree and if they don't spend hours and hours and hours correcting Arbustoo's junk, (which only gets reinstated anyway), they deserve what they get. That sir, is not fair. --68.21.178.199 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you start with something specific? Speaking in broad general terms will get this discussion nowhere. Pick a single point - just one, and dispute it. Argue against the source, it's factuality; provide a counter-source, whatever. Maybe you don't have "hours and hours", but with a little effort over time you can improve the quality of the article. --Awcga 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Arbustoo is a good editor with a history of well-researched contributions, but nobody is infallible, so if definite, specific, cited and verifiable corrections can be provided, they will obviously achieve consensus. Right now what's in there does seem to be proven. Just zis Guy you know? 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I really enjoy the personal attacks. First this anon. editor claims there is a conspiracy behind "unsourced" attacks, then I source the article and provide independent sources and I become part of the conspiracy. Anon. IP, attacking me does nothing for your case. This is about facts. If you can't dispute them you don't have a case. Arbusto 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles Controversy AfD

Hello people, the AfD for the above article has just closed with the decision that it should be merged here. Could somebody knowledgeable in this area please do that? Thanks! Babajobu 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It basically is merged, as least the verified/national press stuff. Arbusto 05:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs cleanup and POV adjustments

I removed the doctrinal dispute with Bob Ross because the only source is the critic himself. Unlike other allegations, which were reported in the newspapers which (presumably) offered Hyles' side a chance to rebut, there is no way to neutrally portray a religous dispute between two preachers, unless you have something like a ruling from the National Council of Bishops or the general Synod or whatever passes for ultimate authority in this denomination. On the other hand, I consider the material from the Biblical Evangelist to be appropriate because the PDF file includes responses from Hyles. Thatcher131 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the command structure of this denomination, it should be noted that officially, there isn't one. Or, if there is one, it is in the order of God, pastor, head-of-household, children (though that could be disputed on the grounds that it re-introduces the concept of clergy coming between God and laity, something that Baptists historically opposed more than most denominations have). That's a vulgar and brief summary of the concept, anyway. This subject of the proper structure of the church is a matter of theological discussion in itself, especially amongst Baptists. First Baptist Church of Hammond is a fundamental, Independent Baptist Church. The reason it is called an Independent Baptist Church is that it answers to no earthly hierarchy; it is independent. So, there is no higher theological authority on Earth for this church than the head pastor (who was Jack Hyles until his death), at least in theory. The only court amongst these churches would be the court of public opinion, in which hear-say is presented and people decide what they are going to believe, if anything. Indeed, Misplaced Pages has unwittingly become an accessory of this process. Whether the allegations against Jack Hyles are true or not, the reason they are presented so dogmatically here is that the anti-Hyles side is evangelizing for its position. Pooua 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Biblical Evangelist stuff is part of the claims made in the press/newspapers (ie Sumner is cited by the newspapers). For that reason alone it should be left in. Arbusto 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The last I checked, I was on friendly terms with Robert Sumner. He and I were also on the same message board until Hurricane Katrina forced the relocation of the board and real life intruded on his life. But, if you want to judge character on the basis of what is reported in newspapers, I could smear Sumner the way you all have smeared Hyles. "Sword of the LORD" published several strongly-worded articles opposing Sumner's claims about Jack Hyles.

Part of the reason that I am so conflicted on this matter of Jack Hyles is that I have had personal correspondence with both men, and I have respect for both men. I've also conversed with many other people on all sides of the debate, from all across the United States. This is not such a simple matter as you are presenting here. Pooua 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs cleanup and there are two main issues. First is redlinks; if there is little or no chance that a person or term will be Wikified, then remove the link. Second is the issue of references. I know the footnote template was used but the problem is that multiple footnotes refer to the same source but they follow no logical order. For example, both note 8 and 16 refer to endnote 5. This is very confusing and only works if the browser window is small enough that the browser can put the right endnote at the top of the page. (My monitor is large enough that clicking on any note just goes to the bottom of the page with no ability to distinguish which note was being aimed at.) Is there another citation template that would work better? I will eventually look into this if no one else fixes it but not right away. Thatcher131 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Red links removed and I don't know about any other citation method, but I agree the citation layout can be confusing. Arbusto 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The links really are a mess, and so is some of the writing (I mean, in addition to issues of factuality). Let's start with, "Victor Nischik has accused Hyles of ... questionable financial dealings." Endnote is "Hyles-Anderson College Catalog (pages 8-23)"; the correct endnote appears to be Endnote .

The paragraph, "Reverend Tom Neal, amongst others ... with God to compensate for sins" is contradictory (or, POV). Why would someone who follows another person "in a 'cultic' way" claim that his leader is taking increasingly extreme positions? Well, the answer is, he probably would not; it is more likely that the editor is trying to project his own views through Tom Neal. Also, "purported" is probably the wrong word in "Neal purported that Hyles..." Pooua 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Article

I attended First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, as a young sailor during the Fall of 1984. For years, I had heard of Jack Hyles (I remember my pastor giving high school graduates from his school a copy of Hyles' "Blue Denim and Lace."). I was quite willing to make the 100-mile bus ride from Great Lakes, Illinois to First Baptist Church every Saturday so that I could attend church services there on Sunday.

There are many things about Jack Hyles that have not been mentioned in this article, but the article is lop-sided with controversial negative statements regarding Jack Hyles. That is all the more odd, considering that I never heard of any of these allegations until 1988. All those years that I heard of him, and heard his detractors, but no one brought these kind of charges into the public until then. They sound so out of character for him.

The statements made by the news media would have more weight with me if I had not witnessed their attacks on Jack Hyles for several years prior to these allegations. They always were looking for something to bring him down. Remember the time that FBCH gave out chicks (that is, baby chickens) to the Sunday School students? A newspaper editor called Hyles directly and accused him of cruelty to animals. Pastor Hyles replied that he had done even worse. The editor asked what he had done. Hyles replied, "I ate their mother!" Something similar happened when the Sunday School gave away guppies (small fish) to the Sunday School students. The newspaper was up in arms about the little fishes flopping around in the dwindling puddles in the parking lot.

When my sister was an aide to Pastor Hyles, about the same time that these allegations began to surface, I asked her about the allegations of sexual misconduct. She said they were untrue. She still attends FBCH, along with her husband (who she met at Hyles-Anderson Christian College) and her 4 children. Her two oldest children are now students in the day school run by FBCH.

I think that it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of such scandalous accusations against someone of Jack Hyles' stature. For the reason I mentioned, newspaper reports aren't very useful. Hyles attracted a lot of enemies, so it is natural there would be people who would try to destroy his reputation. Of more weight is the word of Robert Sumner, a man with whom I have had direct, though brief, communication. I have never attended Pastor Sumner's church, or sat under his preaching, but I have corresponded with him via mail and a Web forum. From what I know of him, he is an honest man, but I simply don't know either him or Hyles well enough to decide who is more reputable. The article mentions court cases brought against Hyles, but it does not state the deposition of those cases. As far as I know, no one was able to convince a jury that Jack Hyles was responsible for all these things of which he is accused.

This issue is highly controversial, even within Christian fundamentalism. I know of several leaders within fundamentalism who never spared Jack Hyles from criticism. Several of his fellow preachers around the world simply did not like him, and easily accepted these reports when they came out. But, there are many other people who are fiercely defensive of Jack Hyles. It is not easy to tell who is fighting for the truth.

Pooua 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right, it never is easy. The problem is that much of what he did that is verifiable, is essentially trivial (in that it does not distinguish him from any other pastor) - it is the controversies, more than anything else, wihch mark him out as a notable person. Do feel free to suggest any specific changes or additions, though. Just zis Guy you know? 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should consist mostly of varifiable information. If there is any hear-say or rumor or unsubstantiated claims mentioned in an encyclopedic article, it should be a very small part of the whole article, maybe a footnote or a paragraph. This article on Jack Hyles turns that concept upside-down; the majority of the article is nothing more than hear-say, even if reported by news organizations. I believe this undermines the credibility of Misplaced Pages.

Jack Hyles loomed large in my world and in the lives of many other people without reference to these controversies. So, I must disagree with your statement that the controversies make him a noteable person, or that he would be essentially the same as any other pastor if not for the controversies. Not very many pastors have increased attendance at their church from 44 to 20,000. And, as Jack Hyles himself points out, not very many Independent Baptists write books; he wrote dozens (Amazon.com currently lists 43). Furthermore, Jack Hyles is one of the most recognizeable names of any fundamentalist pastor; few are more famous than he. Few fundamentalist pastors have had as big an influence on a major city--if not the nation--as Jack Hyles. Pooua 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Which specific items lack verifiable evidence? Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, aren't you the guy who wrote, "The problem is that much of what he did that is verifiable, is essentially trivial"? That looked like you agreed that the claims in the newspaper articles are not verifiable claims. But, since you now ask, here is a list of my answers:

1) We cannot confirm that Jack Hyles taught a doctrine of celestial marriage, and the other statements in that paragraph regarding wife-swapping have nothing to do with the Mormon doctrine of celestial marriage.

2) The statement that Jack Hyles had questionable financial dealings is just an accusation, i.e., hear-say. It does not belong in an encyclopedic article unless there were some significant history attached to it. All the claim serves here is mud-slinging. We don't even know from the article what sort of questionable financial dealings he is supposed to have had, or how much money is supposed to have been involved, or how his accuser knows of such improprieties!

3) We don't have verifiable evidence that Jack Hyles committed adultery with Jenny Nischik, or any other woman.

Additionally, the statement that "Reverend Tom Neal, amongst others have been said to follow Jack Hyles in a 'cultic' way" is obviously POV as worded. I should also point out that if Tom Neal is not going to have a Wiki page made for him--and why should one be made for him?--he should not be red-worded.

Then, there is the matter of the seeing-eye dog. First, is this actually a significant event? What became of it? Nothing, that's what. The man left and that was the end of the matter. That's besides the point that the dog may have been causing trouble in the church, and the man--a long time attendee--had only recently gotten the dog.

I don't know if Jack Hyles is innocent or guilty on any of the accusations made against him, but I know that Misplaced Pages is not the place for publishing gossip. Pooua 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But we have verifiable evidence of the accusations and other events surrounding it, don't we? You wouldn't want to bury published criticism, I'm sure. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's called, "hear-say," and it is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. What do you think this is? The "National Tattler"?

When you read an encyclopedic article about George Bush in an encyclopedia with professional editors, do you imagine that all the claims and accusations that you now find in the newspapers will be in that article? At most, there would be a brief summary or indirect reference to them, and only if they were significant in themselves to his term in office.

Anyone can make any claim or complaint against anyone. An encyclopedia is not the appropriate place for it. If this information is not summarized or reduced, I will have to escalate the issue up the Misplaced Pages command structure. I cannot allow this to continue. It is bad for the interests of history and the interests of Misplaced Pages. Pooua 14:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can add sourced articles do so. Arbusto 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is really amazing about you guys is that if someone said they were going to sue Misplaced Pages, you wouldn't include that in the article about Misplaced Pages; but, if a newspaper reports that someone says they are going to sue Misplaced Pages, suddenly it's a sourced reference. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

This is nothing more than a smear campaign. Whether it is intended to discredit Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Christian fundamentalism, Christianity, religion in general or Americans in general, it is a smear campaign. It is based on the flimsiest material. Your inclusion of this material is exceedingly unprofessional of an editor.

From Misplaced Pages:

"NPOV" {Long quote of NPOV removed- see link}

This article about Jack Hyles violates at least the NPOV and the No Original Research basics. You attempt to justify what you are doing solely on the basis of Verifiability. I must point out that for there to be a controversy, there must be two sides, but you have only reported on one side, and the reporting you have done is nothing more than clips of accusations provided with very little context. Pooua 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How does it violate NPOV and NOR? Specific examples please?

I already gave you 3 numbered specific examples. Someone referenced newspaper articles reporting that someone was making defamatory statements about Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church of Hammond or Hyles-Anderson Christian College. Those allegations are then posted here. No further context, no further information. In the 3 cases I specified, we are told that someone is going to be sued, but we never hear the outcome of any lawsuit, or even that there actually was a lawsuit. This is clear-cut NPOV, and you are simply being obstinate in refusing to admit it.

If your problem is that there isn't enough positive aspects.

No, my problem is that you have a bunch of hear-say and people making claims, and then no follow-up.

Feel free to improved it with sourced material.

Oh, sure; I could use the same yellow journalism you and your friends have used to post glowing praise for Jack Hyles, if you want sourced material. It's cheap editorial practices like this that give Misplaced Pages a bad reputation; it's exactly what Misplaced Pages's critics predicted would happen when it was created.

I browsed through lexus-nexus and the Hammond-area papers, I did not see positive stories.

You could have browsed "Sword of the LORD." It's a newspaper, just as much as Sumner's paper that is referenced in the article.

There is a story about theft being linked to Hyles-Anderson students that isn't on that page, but other than that the newspaper stories are well-represented. Arbusto 19:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Real encyclopedias are not collections of newspaper clippings. Pooua 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, my first complaint about the controversies is that nothing specific is ever determined from them; it's just a bunch of people making a bunch of statements that may or may not be true.

My second complaint is that the significance of the controversies in the life of Jack Hyles is not demonstrated to be sufficient for an encyclopedia article. No one has shown on this page how these events changed the life of Jack Hyles in a significant way. In fact, no one has shown that any of these events changed the life of Jack Hyles in any way. That is partly because they are presented as just a bunch of claims that people have made. But, because this is a biographical page on Jack Hyles, the information presented MUST show exactly what this article does not; the things Jack Hyles did, and the things that life did to Jack Hyles.

My third complaint is that several Misplaced Pages editors are using Misplaced Pages as a smear machine, not a source of encyclopedic information. Pooua 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What a concidence - our complaint is that several editors are intent on whitewashing a controversial figure. So between us the balance should come out about right. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write a book or even a newspaper article, that's one thing. An encyclopedia should not be written as a tell-all book, an investigative report or a newspaper column. This article should be written from the POV of the subject, not the POVs of the people making accusations. That is simply standard in real encyclopedias. And, yes, people have long complained that this "whitewashes" controversial figures.

Misplaced Pages should not be used as your own private gossip column. Pooua 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is clear. If you can add anything to it fine, but if you browse through the article history you see a revert war over the criticism. The article was cleaned up with newspaper sources and now you want them deleted just because they are negative. That is POV. Arbusto 21:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, just because Jack Hyles hid his background from his students (i assume this since Pooua didn't hear any of the controverisies) this is even more reason to have some of it in the article. They are documented so why shouldn't they be included? If you take out the controversies then Hyle is not notable. It seems to me that the real problem with wikipedia is that some editors think they can write pages with huge POV and then get pissed off when the other verifiable information gets added to the page. The lesson is that POV users need to look for the skeletons in the closet before they write new articles about their heros. Writing an article in wikipedia is like opening Pandoras box David D. (Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)